Maryland election officials are trying to undermine a hard-won, grass roots-initiated referendum on the state’s grotesquely gerrymandered congressional districts, and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. The current wording of the question that will appear on the Nov. 6th ballot offers no clue about the swirling controversy over a redrawn map that callously displaces a third of Maryland voters just to increase Democrats’ political power.
When the General Assembly passed this carved-up disaster on Oct. 20, 2011, the partisan goal was to unseat Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-6th, one of the state’s two Republican congressmen. Gov. Martin O’Malley signed off on it even though, as even some Maryland Democrats now admit, the deformed districts make a mockery of the process mandated every 10 years by the U.S. Constitution.
When MDPetitions.com collected the signatures of 59,201 confirmed registered voters to subject the widely criticized redistricting effort to public referendum for the first time since 1962, state Democrats tried to block it in court. But the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 17 that the referendum could proceed.
On behalf of MDPetitions.com, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit three days later in Anne Arundel Circuit Court accusing the Maryland State Board of Elections, Secretary of State John McDonough and State Elections Administrator Linda Lamone of deliberately choosing “legally insufficient” language that “does not present the purpose of the enactment concisely and intelligently” as required by law.
McDonough had up to 200 words to portray the real issue before voters, but he used only 23: “Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.” This terse wording explains what Maryland is obligated to do, but not what it’s actually done– which is the whole point of the referendum. “It’s jarring when you compare it to the length and description of the other two referendums on gay marriage and in-state tuition that will also be on the ballot,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told The Washington Examiner.
The wording makes no mention of the significant changes made to congressional districts, including moving nearly half of all voters in the 6th District. Nor does it give even a hint that the redrawn districts are the exact opposite of “compact and contiguous.” The court’s duty here is clear: Order changes to the wording of the referendum before the final deadline on Tuesday.
